Saturday, May 22, 2010

The National Center for Public Policy Research wants to make the point that climate science is in its infancy, so it makes little sense for Congress to adopt hugely-expensive cap-and-trade policies based upon it.

If NOAA's prediction turns out to be more accurate than the one by "Dr. Hansimian" (actually a movie chimp named Kenzie), the National Center says, the Center will post a prominent mea culpa on its website. If Dr. Hansimian's prediction is better, it challenges NOAA to make the chimp an honorary member of its hurricane forecasting team.

Friday, May 14, 2010

Tom Borelli of the National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project and Stuart Varney of Varney & Co. on Fox discuss one of the bigger downsides of a cap-and-trade plan -- the possibility that the whole thing will come crashing down at some future point, harming (often innocent, or at least, naive) investors in the process.

Carbon dioxide has no economic value now. If cap-and-trade is adopted, the government will be placing upon it an artificial value. We already know companies will line up to invest in it, as GE, Goldman Sachs, Duke Energy and others have been lobbying to make certain any cap-and-trade bill Congress adopts has terms favorable (at least temporarily) to them. But at some future date, Congress will change its mind about cap-and-trade, Carbon dioxide will become valueless. Who will be left holding the bag?

The bill would raise domestic energy prices noticably, reduce American competitiveness, and if it had any effect whatsoever on global temperatures, which it probably wouldn't, it would be a tiny one indeed.

R.J. Smith of the National Center for Public Policy Research says the Clean Water Restoration Act is coming up fior a vote in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on July 18.

This is very bad legislation for anyone who wants to protect property rights. If this bill passes, the federal government will have the authority to regulate every drop of water in the United States, including a temporary rainwater puddle in your back yard.

Some will say that's unconstitutional, and that's true. That said, getting something declared unconstitutional is not easy, nor is it cheap. It is easier to stop the bill from being adopted in the first place.

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

We the undersigned public interest organizations, representing millions of members and supporters nationwide, hereby call upon you to reject the $819 billion spending bill that passed the House of Representatives last week.

This legislation will total some $1.2 trillion when interest is calculated over the next decade, and represents an unsustainable growth of government.

In addition, the Congressional Budget Office calculates that the budget deficit will already be $1.2 trillion for 2009. On January 3rd, the Washington Post reported that the deficit could total as much as $2 trillion. In part, it depends on how badly the recession hits the U.S., but also on how much productive capital the government takes out of the broader economy.

The irresponsible expansion of the budget to bail out state governments from their own budget deficits, expand Medicaid, boost education spending, food stamps and unemployment benefits, build federal buildings, provide more for public housing, construct climate change supercomputers, erect trade barriers overseas, create refundable tax credits, and make special interest payouts will not stimulate sustainable economic growth.

Instead, the astronomical growth of government spending, coupled with further monetary easing and protectionism, will discourage investment, savings, and capital creation, because in the longer term it means higher taxes, higher interest rates, and inflation. It will destroy jobs in the private sector, thus increasing individual dependency on government.

Importantly, it will steep American taxpayers ever deeper into a spiral of debt, now nearly $10.7 trillion. That includes $4.3 trillion owed in the form of unfunded obligations to Social Security, Medicare, and other commitments, and $6.4 trillion held privately, $3 trillion of which is held overseas. 40 percent of the debt held privately comes due this year. The only way for the government to pay it is to borrow yet more money.

As a result, the federal government is running the serious risk that it will default on its financial obligations, as the nation's creditors during the current economic downturn may be unable to continue sustaining the uncontrolled growth of spending, leaving the nation in financial ruin.

America needs a plan now to begin paying down the national debt, not an ill-conceived scheme that will make that task impossible for our children and our children's children. The nation needs to tighten its belt, and learn how to live on less credit, less borrowing, and less debt.

This is a change that must occur at the individual level, at the county level, the state level, and the national level. It is not a change that should begin by doubling down on a hasty, careless gamble.

In addition, permanent tax cuts that change incentives are much more effective than temporary targeted tax incentives and spending. What economists call the "permanent income hypothesis" shows that individuals and businesses only change their spending and investment habits significantly when they expect policy changes to be permanent. It takes more than one-year, for instance, to build a factory, and businesses may not do so if they think that tax incentives are only temporary.

Preventing tax increases on individual income, capital gains and dividends, changing the tax code to allow full-cost, first-year expensing for business equipment rather than the arbitrary IRS depreciation schedule, and lowering the U.S. corporate tax rate, among the highest in the world, would yield much more bang for the buck in ensuring a rapid economic recovery than the current package of massive spending with a sliver of targeted tax cuts.

Again, on behalf of our members nationwide, we the undersigned urge you to reject the $819 billion spending bill now being considered. Instead, we ask you to promulgate a real plan for change, to finally set the nation's fiscal house in order, to provide permanent tax relief to businesses and individuals, to free the American people from the boom-to-bust economic cycle, and to at last retire the national debt.

Sincerely,

Fred L. Smith, Jr.PresidentCompetitive Enterprise Institute

Gary AldrichChairmanCNP Action, Inc.

William WilsonPresidentAmericans for Limited Government

Mark WilliamsonFounder and PresidentFederal Intercessors

Thomas McCluskyVP for Government AffairsFamily Research Council

David N. BossiePresidentCitizens United

James L. MartinPresident60 Plus Association

Duane PardePresidentNational Taxpayers Union

Mark Chmura Executive Director Americans for the Preservation of Liberty

Friday, January 23, 2009

Pelosi said one of her favorite moments from Inauguration Day was when Marine One lifted off the Capitol grounds, signifying former President George W. Bush's exit from Washington. 'It felt like a 10-pound anvil was lifted off my head,' she said.

After the way the mostly liberal crowd treated the outgoing president at the inauguration, you'd think the Democratic party leadership would be going out of its way to show a little more class, if only in public, and only to make themselves look a little better than they now appear.

Monday, December 15, 2008

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Americans for the Preservation of Liberty has joined 58 other organizations in calling upon the U.S. Congress to refuse to use federal taxpayer funds to bail out states and local governments that are spending more than they take in.

Why should taxpayers in states and localities that balance their budgets be forced to bail out state and local governments than overspent?

After the vote today among Democrats in Congress to replace somewhat moderately liberal Rep. John Dingell (D-CA) as chairman of the House Commerce Committee with off-the-wall left-wing partisan Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), you can bet energy curbs are on the fast track, especially in the House.

An excerpt from Ridenour's op-ed:

When our economic bus is teetering at the edge of a cliff, it's a bad time to throw on some extra weight...

...A study by the National Association of Manufacturers projected that emissions caps similar to those rejected earlier this year by the U.S. Senate calling for a 63-percent cut in emissions by 2050, would reduce U.S. gross domestic product by up to $269 billion and cost 850,000 jobs by 2014.

The Heritage Foundation estimated such restrictions would result in cumulative GDP losses of up to $4.8 trillion and employment losses of more than 500,000 a year by 2030.

...Duke University's Nicholas Institute estimates a GDP loss of $245 billion by 2030 while the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates a GDP drop of $238 billion to $983 billion.

...According to a study conducted by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the restrictions could raise gasoline prices 29 percent, electricity prices 55 percent and natural-gas prices 15 percent by 2015.

...And it appears that all this economic pain would be an utterly meaningless gesture. Patrick Michaels, former president of the American Association of State Climatologists, who is now with the Cato Institute, says reducing U.S. emissions 63 percent would prevent a mere 0.013 degrees Celsius in warming....

Saturday, August 30, 2008

We received the following email from MoveOn this evening, addressed "Dear MoveOn member," although we have never joined nor contributed to that organization.

MoveOn appears a bit overwrought at John McCain's selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to be his running mate.

A few things struck us about the email, which is reprinted in full below:

1) The word "religious" in a sequence of words MoveOn personnal regard as pejorative. In context, it appears MoveOn considers religious faith to be a negative.

2) MoveOn's use of Wikipedia as a source (see footnote #1). Risky. Wikipedia can say anything, and often does.

3) MoveOn's use of a Huffington Post blog post by the notoriously unreliable Canadian PR flack Kevin Grandia as a source on Palin's views on climate change (see footnote #5). Grandia is paid to write for the Canadian left-wing environmental website DeSmogBlog, run by a PR agency and popular with many global warming skeptics for its unintentionally hilarious incompetent posts on science issues. If MoveOn truly needs the help of foreign experts to evaluate U.S. candidates, it would do better to consult competent ones.

4) MoveOn refers to Palin suing the Bush Administration "for listing polar bears as an endangered species," but the Bush Administration didn't list the polar bear as an endangered species, it listed it as a threatened species. There is a big difference. MoveOn listed a political statement by the Sierra Club as its source for this, but the Sierra Club statement had it right.

5) MoveOn members being quoted but being identified without their last names. Are these people made up, or are they real people who lack the courage to have their full names in an e-mail? Surely the political situation in Alaska is not such that ALL the MoveOn members there faced some sort of retaliation for criticizing the governor. (Though we note that "member" Sherry C. said Palin "is doing well running our State.")

6) The consistent theme about Palin having no foreign policy experience, as if this was not also true for Bill Clinton in 1992, Jimmy Carter in 1976, Abraham Lincoln in 1860 and Barack Obama today, among many other presidents and presidential aspirants. Ditto for national experience. Governors often are elected to the presidency.

7) [Added to post later] MoveOn accepted the left-wing The Nation magazine's word that Palin endorsed Pat Buchanan for president in 2000, but ABC News is reporting, based on a 1999 Associated Press report, that Palin supported Steve Forbes and served on his local campaign leadership committee that year.

Judge for yourself. Here's the complete MoveOn email:

Dear MoveOn member,

Yesterday was John McCain's 72nd birthday. If elected, he'd be the oldest president ever inaugurated. And after months of slamming Barack Obama for "inexperience," here's who John McCain has chosen to be one heartbeat away from the presidency: a right-wing religious conservative with no foreign policy experience, who until recently was mayor of a town of 9,000 people.

Huh?

Who is Sarah Palin? Here's some basic background:

She was elected Alaska's governor a little over a year and a half ago. Her previous office was mayor of Wasilla, a small town outside Anchorage. She has no foreign policy experience.1

Palin is strongly anti-choice, opposing abortion even in the case of rape or incest.2

She supported right-wing extremist Pat Buchanan for president in 2000.3

Palin thinks creationism should be taught in public schools.4 She's doesn't think humans are the cause of climate change.5 She's solidly in line with John McCain's "Big Oil first" energy policy. She's pushed hard for more oil drilling and says renewables won't be ready for years. She also sued the Bush administration for listing polar bears as an endangered species—she was worried it would interfere with more oil drilling in Alaska.6

How closely did John McCain vet this choice? He met Sarah Palin once at a meeting. They spoke a second time, last Sunday, when he called her about being vice-president. Then he offered her the position.7

This is information the American people need to see. Please take a moment to forward this email to your friends and family.

We also asked Alaska MoveOn members what the rest of us should know about their governor. The response was striking. Here's a sample:

She is really just a mayor from a small town outside Anchorage who has been a governor for only 1.5 years, and has ZERO national and international experience. I shudder to think that she could be the person taking that 3AM call on the White House hotline, and the one who could potentially be charged with leading the US in the volatile international scene that exists today. —Rose M., Fairbanks, AK

She is VERY, VERY conservative, and far from perfect. She's a hunter and fisherwoman, but votes against the environment again and again. She ran on ethics reform, but is currently under investigation for several charges involving hiring and firing of state officials. She has NO experience beyond Alaska. —Christine B., Denali Park, AK

As an Alaskan and a feminist, I am beyond words at this announcement. Palin is not a feminist, and she is not the reformer she claims to be. —Karen L., Anchorage, AK

Alaskans, collectively, are just as stunned as the rest of the nation. She is doing well running our State, but is totally inexperienced on the national level, and very much unequipped to run the nation, if it came to that. She is as far right as one can get, which has already been communicated on the news. In our office of thirty employees (dems, republicans, and nonpartisans), not one person feels she is ready for the V.P. position.—Sherry C., Anchorage, AK

She's vehemently anti-choice and doesn't care about protecting our natural resources, even though she has worked as a fisherman. McCain chose her to pick up the Hillary voters, but Palin is no Hillary. —Marina L., Juneau, AK

I think she's far too inexperienced to be in this position. I'm all for a woman in the White House, but not one who hasn't done anything to deserve it. There are far many other women who have worked their way up and have much more experience that would have been better choices. This is a patronizing decision on John McCain's part- and insulting to females everywhere that he would assume he'll get our vote by putting "A Woman" in that position.—Jennifer M., Anchorage, AK

So Governor Palin is a staunch anti-choice religious conservative. She's a global warming denier who shares John McCain's commitment to Big Oil. And she's dramatically inexperienced.

In picking Sarah Palin, John McCain has made the religious right very happy. And he's made a very dangerous decision for our country.

In the next few days, many Americans will be wondering what McCain's vice-presidential choice means. Please pass this information along to your friends and family.